Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (22437)	11/6/1999 11:02:00 AM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

what all of you are missing, and i can't say i'm surprised, is that monopolies are not ILLEGAL. you have to prove that CONSUMERS, not competitors have been harmed. Other than the four guys who post here, I can't think of a one. funny: the cry babies who colluded with DOJ. I wonder how many BILLIONARES were in the room. twenty?, thirty? boo who. m$ft hurt me!! umm. excuse me. can you get me my Ferrari? I'm jetting to Paris in 30 minutes. like Martha says: Monopolies. That's a GOOD thing. i said it before and i'll say it again. if those two "poor" souls, ellison or mcnealy had the market position of m$sft...well you haven't seen RUTHLESS until you see them in action.

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (22437)	11/6/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 64865

washington post on the same subject washingtonpost.com

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (22437)	11/6/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Michael, Your perspective has more of a psychological perspective than many of the other commentaries I've read. This I find fascinating. Let me add some of my thoughts. I agree with you that in some regard Bill Gates does in fact enjoy the reputation he has received -- ruthless and in the league with JD Rockefellar, Morgan, etc. He already has the most highly capitalized corporation in the world as well as being the richest man in the world -- along with many of his friends. He's powerful, he rules and he controls. I am sure that must be how he likes it. How was that materialistic aggrandizement obtained? Every one has an opinion but he won't be remembered for playing fair, nor for having great technological savvy. He only belatedly saw the internet coming. He got there by winning at any cost. Extortion, coersion and intimidation was not anything he shied away from. It is SCOTT McNEALY and SUNW who will acquire the reputation of being successful, playing fairly, as well as superior technological vision and quality products. When Scott was asked what he wanted to remembered for, part of his reply was that he played fair. Winning by the rules is important to Scott. Not making the rules as it suits you. Again what is important to Gates is "winning" no matter what. For me it's a tragedy of sorts that a great company like Microsoft that has contributed so much to bringing the new digital age to the world, in the end succumbed to greed and corruption. This will be part of Bill Gates' legacy: not technological brilliance but perhaps business brilliance as measured by the wealth he and his corporation has amassed. On an ethical level I see him as a drug addict needing to enter a 12 step program and "make amends" to those he has illegally harmed "willfully". That is not likely since he, as well as many other's, continue to justify his behavior by the economic success of M$FT. "All's fair in business", they seem to say. Gov't intervention is the evil they see, not the last desperate attempt to stop an unrepentent criminal who laughs at the laws which are for "the little people". Bill now seems to think he can undo the harm he has done to the vision and creativity of others by buying his way into the good opinion of others by giving away his "surplus capital" to charity. That will probably be true for those who only look superficially at appearances. All the best, Michael